Helen Southworth: The Northwest Development Agency has committed more than £50 million to develop Daresbury Science and Innovation Campus. We now have a return on that investment, with 22 ultra-high-tech companies based at the centre. Will my right hon. Friend come to see world-class science in action at Daresbury and discuss further investment opportunities?

Vincent Cable: How does the Chancellor explain the fact that, on the one hand, 80 university science departments have closed in the past six years because of the squeeze on university research and teaching of science while, on the other hand, he is handing out £1.5 billion of taxpayers' money every year to private companies, which have access to shareholders' funds and capital markets and which have rewarded his generosity by increasing R and D not one iota? Is there not a fundamental lack of coherence in the Government's approach to science and innovation?

Gordon Brown: The lack of coherence is in the Liberal tax and spending plans that were announced only a few days ago. There seems to be a £20 billion gap in the spending plans of the hon. Gentleman's party.
	I hope that the hon. Gentleman will support the£1.5 billion in R and D tax credits so that Britain is a scientific leader in future. I hope that he supports our doubling of the science budget for the United Kingdom, so that instead of being behind the rest of the world as we were under the Conservatives, we are catching up and hope to lead the world. I hope that he also supports the money that we are putting into universities. It seems to me that in every part of the country the Liberals are making promises to spend on universities, science and R and D tax credits, but he must now explain his £20 billion spending gap.

Barry Sheerman: Will my right hon. Friend remember when he listens to Twickenham Man that Twickenham does not have a university? Huddersfield does have a university. I was with Huddersfield, Bradford and York universities only last Friday. They are enthusiastic about the innovation, the science, the technology and the investment that has been going on over the past nine years. Will my right hon. Friend remember that I was told, "You don't look at a university campus to find an entrepreneur." We need new ways to bring more entrepreneurial spirit and activity on to university campuses.

Gordon Brown: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who chairs the Education and Skills Select Committee. He will be aware of the fact that I set out initially in the main answer to the question. It is that 200 companies are spun off from universities every year. That is three times what was achieved under the Conservative Government before us. There are 20 companies now listed on the stock exchange—this is in the past two years—that have a combined capital of £1 billion. The idea that Britain is not moving forward, as has been suggested by the shadow Chancellor, in high technology and science-based industries is completely wrong. We are making considerable advances and we shall continue to do so, but it depends on us making the commitment to both education and science, which we have done but which other parties seem unprepared to do.

David Simpson: I am sure that the Chancellor will join me in congratulating three schools in my constituency which have received prestigious awards under the young enterprise programme for innovation. There has been a difficulty with funding throughout the United Kingdom. Has that problem been rectified? Lastly, I wish the right hon. Gentleman well for his trip to the Province on Monday.

John Healey: The climate change levy is playing a crucial role in enabling the UK to meet its Kyoto targets.An independent valuation conducted recently by Cambridge Econometrics has examined the levy. It concluded that the levy would, by 2010, deliver annual carbon savings of 3.5 million tonnes. That is far in advance of the forecast of 2 million tonnes of carbon when we introduced the levy.

John Healey: My hon. Friend is right. The UK led the way with introducing the climate change levy, and now it is the sort of measure that is required throughout the European Union. We led the way in introducing an emissions trading scheme, and we led the way also in setting up and strengthening the European Commission's scheme. We are leading as well with our commitment to the Kyoto commitment. Along with the Netherlands and Sweden, we are one of only three EU member states, of 15 countries, in being on track to meet our Kyoto targets.
	On climate change, the test for all parties is whether they will back the domestic action that is needed in Britain. In addition, can they wield the international influence that is required to secure the international action that is needed even more badly?

John Healey: My hon. Friend will remember that, when we introduced the climate change levy, we also introduced a 0.3 per cent. cut in employers' national insurance contributions. She will be aware of the launch of a new campaign by the Carbon Trust, which is linked to the climate change levy. British businesses will waste more than £500 million over the summer if they fail to adopt energy efficiency failures, and the campaign demonstrates that the trust can help them by delivering an average 15 per cent. saving in energy efficiency and business costs. Clearly, the climate change levy package can help business and the environment, so I hope that it receives support from Members on both sides of the House.

Gordon Brown: Hundreds of schools around the country are now linking up with schools in developing countries, and the Department for International Development is providing support to enable those schools to have teacher exchanges or contact between the pupils in the different countries. I applaud the initiative of the schools in my hon. Friend's constituency. As to progressing the education for all initiative, 110 million children are not going to school today, two thirds of whom are girls. For $10 billion a year, we could provide education for every child. As the House knows, the British Government have set aside£8 billion over the next 10 years to make possible a major education initiative that will help millions of children into school, but we will need the support of other countries and also the fast-track initiative of the World Bank to expand to achieve that. We discussed with other countries on Saturday how to secure a co-ordinated campaign to enhance the number of children going to school. That will be a subject for the G8 meeting next month, which the Prime Minister will attend, and will also feature in the September meetings of the World Bank, where we hope to reach further agreements. It is a major international initiative and I hope that, by this time next year, we will have signed up all the major countries to make it possible.

John McFall: Will the Chancellor continue his commitment made at Gleneagles last year to halve world poverty by 2015? If the wealthiest countries can increase their spending from £20 billion a year to £200 billion a year over the next decade, we can indeed reach that target. If his fellow Finance Ministers think that is challenging, will they look at global arms expenditure, which is£900 billion? In the comprehensive spending review that he will announce later this month, will he give a commitment that the United Kingdom will do more than its bit to ensure that the target of halving world poverty by 2015 is achieved?

Gordon Brown: International development spending in the United Kingdom increased last year and this year and will increase next year. We are on course to meet our targets for international development spending. World development aid is increasing. We have signed the agreements that make it possible to write off multilateral debt, so in total we expect up to£170 billion of debt to be written off. The condition of that is that the money will go to education, health and anti-poverty programmes in the developing countries. At next month's meeting of the G8, we are determined to push forward so that every country agrees that the commitments that we made for the millennium development goals on poverty, education and health are met. I hope that is the common view in all parts of the House.

Theresa Villiers: Did the G8 Finance Ministers discuss the fact that in2005 Britain recorded its slowest economic growth for 13 years? In the first quarter of this year, our growth put us 15th out of the 23 Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development states that have reported so far. We are below the OECD average, below the G7 average, behind the EU 25 and no better than the poorly performing eurozone. We may be ahead of slow-growing France, Germany and Italy, but when will we start catching up with the world's successful economies?

Gordon Brown: The Conservatives seem to be banking on a recession. They must face up to the fact that growth is strengthening this year and will be faster in the second half of the year than in the first half. Growth since 1997 is far faster than it was in the18 years before 1997, and we are the country that has low inflation, low interest rates, high employment and sustained growth—the opposite of what happened with two major recessions in the Conservative years. The hon. Lady will also have to face up to the fact that, to maintain our levels of growth, we will need the investment in education and science and the investment in the infrastructure for the future, so her announcement at the time of the Budget that she would not support the additional public spending will have to be revisited. I hope she will agree that she has to do that.

Gordon Brown: If things are going so badly, why did the shadow Chancellor praise us only a few months ago for our record of macro-economic stability? Why did he praise us for having an economic record in creating stability which his party had never achieved? If things are going so badly on regulation, why did the Heritage Foundation, which is beloved of the right wing of the Conservative party, report that we are a more liberal and deregulated economy now than in 1997, when we took office? If things are going so badly, why are there more people in work, why are interest rates low, why are there more home owners, and why is there more prosperity in this country than ever the Conservatives could achieve?

Edward Balls: We are in regular touch with Commissioners on all those issues. The successful completion of the round is extremely important. Although we made progress at the end of last year, the situation is still disappointing. The hon. Gentleman is right to press for further action, and we will not lower our ambitions. In particular, agriculture is key—we need an ambitious outcome to the round, which means an ambitious outcome on agriculture. We will continue to press Commissioners and Trade Ministers around the world to get an outcome as soon as possible.

Malcolm Bruce: I hope that works. Last month, the Paymaster General wrote to me confirming that, after an examination of the transcripts of a constituent's telephone calls to the Revenue, the Revenue acknowledged that it had incorrectly advised the constituent, that the constituent would not have to repay the sums involved and that the constituent would be compensated. Given the clear evidence that staff are finding it difficult to cope with the system, the lack of staff training, the evidence of fraud and the injustice to so many thousands of citizens who have claimed those credits and who have been forced to pay them back, will she acknowledge that the Revenue should always examine the transcripts and not persist in issuing denials when the mistake is usually theirs and not the constituent's?

Brian Jenkins: My right hon. Friend will realise the hardship that is caused to many families who have to repay tax credits, but does she recognise, as I do, that only a fool or a knave would ever pretend that we will get this 100 per cent. correct. I assure her that I would rather be struggling to defend overpayments than underpayments under this scheme.

Stephen Timms: A study by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development in 2001 found that a1 per cent. increase in public research and development spending leads to a productivity rise of 0.17 per cent. There is also growing evidence of a link between effective use of information and communications technology and higher productivity.

Si�n James: I thank my hon. Friend for his response. I believe that it is important to invest in science to help the UK economy grow and for us to compete in an ever increasing global economy. I draw his attention tothe semi-conductor company, Pure Wafer, in my constituency. It is the only company outside Japan with the technology and capability to recycle 300 mm silicon wafers on a global scale. It has received grant assistance and brought jobs to Swansea, and it was recently awarded the title of Welsh company of the year. Will he ensure that the Government continue to invest in science to provide local jobs and help us to compete on a global scale?

Stephen Timms: The science budget will reach3.4 billion by the next financial yearmore than twice the 1997 level in cash terms. Of course, many decisions about money that is committed in Wales are now for the Welsh Assembly. However, there are many outstanding examples in Wales of science-based companies thriving, thanks to what the Government have done.

Rob Marris: Tax relief on pension contributions currently costs18 billion a year in foregone tax revenue, and there will be further tax relief under the new pension arrangements proposed by my right hon. Friend Secretary of State for Work and Pensions. However, the evidence from the Department for Work and Pensions is that tax relief has a negligible effect on how much is saved in pension schemes. Why is there tax relief under the new scheme, when the existing relief is not doing what it was designed to do?

Jack Straw: First, the right hon. Lady referred to comments about the NHS and said what is needed is to concentrate on what is delivered rather than what is reported. I am delighted to concentrate on what is delivered, because the facts of the improvements in the national health service speak for themselves, in terms of huge increases in the number of staffan increase of 85,000 nurses, 30,000 doctors and 10,000 consultants. There have been improvements in staff levels in every constituency and they are paralleled by improvements in health care for every constituent across the country.
	Secondly, the right hon. Lady referred to co-parenting and the proposals before the House next week. I shall certainly pass her comments on to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Skills. Thirdly, she asked about the report in today's  Financial Times about the comprehensive spending review

Jack Straw: I hear the word sentencing being parroted. The difference is that, as a result of those changes, which we had to force through against Conservative opposition, many more guilty criminals are being convicted and sentenced. There was no opportunity before for the courts to convict them because of the inadequacy of the criminal justice system that the Conservatives left. I recallit is worth us all recallingthat when the Conservatives last had charge of the criminal justice system, police numbers were cut and crime doubled. Under this Government, police numbers have risen by 15,000, and according to the British crime survey, crime has gone down on every measure. That is also the case with recorded crime.

Jack Straw: All over the place. They are so deeply committed to the House of Commons and democracy that they have a solitary representative in the Chamber.
	The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) asks about foreswearing the use of guillotine motions. I am not trying to make a casuistical point[Hon. Members: Go on!] Well, I might. We do not have guillotine motions these days; instead we have programme motions, which were recommended by the Modernisation Committee.

Graham Stuart: Will the Leader of the House agree to a debate in Government time on the plight of Zimbabwean refugees? There are many engineers, doctors, teachers, nurses and other people in this country whose skills could be put to good use for our country's benefit, which would maintain those skills for the future. There are also peopleincluding my constituent, Ashleigh McMaster, who, outrageously, has had her application for asylum turned downwho are in limbo because they are unable to study, work, or contribute. Owing to the languishing state of their skills, a group of Zimbabwean people will be unable to contribute to that benighted country when Mugabe goes.

David Taylor: Communities such as Ravenstone, Packington, Normanton-Le-Heath and Heather welcomed the election of a Labour Government in 1997 for many reasons, not least the promise of a tighter line against greenfield open-casting, the experience and future prospects of which have blighted the lives of those Leicestershire villages for decades. The same is true of other coalfield community areas in the midlands and elsewhere. Does the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government plan to make a statement on minerals planning guidance note 3 and whether the concept of the cumulative impact of open-casting has been abandoned in determining applications; and on the reasons for the inquiry inspector's astonishing recommendations in relation to the Long Moor site in north-west Leicestershire, sanctioning a four-year application to extract 750,000 tonnes and potentially condemning the area for decades beyond? There are also risks in relation to Lodge House in Amber Valley. The issue is extremely serious and not only in the valley in north-west Leicestershire.

Jack Straw: I cannot promise my hon. Friend a debate before the summer recess. There will be a debate on Tuesday next week in Westminster Hall. I will not be able to be present but my hon. Friend the Deputy Leader of the House will be deputising for me. There was a debate which lasted for three hours on 10 May, which was in Government time. A good debate it was, too. It was on the motion to establish the Joint Committee on Conventions. I promise my hon. Friend that, during the calendar year, there will be other opportunities to debate what I accept is an important issue and a heavy responsibility on my shoulders.

Jack Straw: I do understand the importance of further education. I am proud to say that I have been, and remain, the governor of the further education college in Blackburn for the past 15 years. I take a real and close interest in the matter. There have been some changes in funding, not for all adult educationlet us be clear about thatbut of non-vocational adult education. I know the importance of that to those who are concerned. Overall, there has been investment in education at other levelsprimary, secondary and higher educationas well as in further education. That is leading over time to significant improvements in skills levels and, for example, in eradicating adult illiteracy, about which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education spoke yesterday.

John Bercow: May we please have a debate on special educational needs? I declare an interest as the father of a two and a half year-old boy who will almost certainly have such needs. Given that there are about 1.5 million children who are SEN, does the Leader of the House accept that it is most unsatisfactory that the three debates on this subject that have taken place in this Parliament have respectively had to be initiated by my right hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron), my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mrs. Dorries) and the hon. Member for Warrington, North (Helen Jones). Will the right hon. Gentleman accept that the Government need to commit to finding Government time to address the concerns and needs of some vulnerable children with severe, complex and multi-faceted disorders? These children need our help and they need it now.

Madam Deputy Speaker: I call Tobias Ellwood.

Jack Straw: I am afraid that I will treat that question with the contempt that it deserves. The hon. Gentleman would complain far more loudly, if there was not an opportunity to question the Deputy Prime Minister or the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster.

Jack Straw: I doubt whether it is the largest Bill ever. The Local Government, Planning and Land Bill introduced by Mr. Michael Heseltine was, as the Conservative Whip, the hon. Member for Upminster (Angela Watkinson) will recall, a massive Bill. It was so awful, however, that it had to be withdrawn. If the hon. Gentleman can guarantee that there will never be the odd procedural glitch in the unlikely event that a Conservative Government are elected, I am happy to listen to him. The Committee will meet next Tuesday, so we will not lose a great deal.

Philip Hollobone: Those figures do not take account of the huge increases in council tax that many vulnerable older people have had to pay since this Administration came to power?

Peter Hain: As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, there is generous council tax benefit for the lowest income pensioners, which helps them to avoid the large council tax bills that they would otherwise face. The council tax was introduced, especially in Wales, after local government reorganisation by the hon. Gentleman's party. In my own constituency, a discriminatory settlement was imposed on the borough of Neath Port Talbot in comparison with Swansea when the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) set up local government and imposed the council tax structure on Wales.

Peter Hain: When it was introduced, the Chancellor made it clear that it was intended to deal with the particular problem of high council tax bills at that time. It was welcomed and I think that the hon. Gentleman's own party welcomed it. We have since kept council tax rises very low, especially in Labour-controlled areas and under Labour councils, in comparison with Conservative and, even more, with Liberal Democrat councils, so I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman raised that matter.

Chris Ruane: He did not say that.

Cheryl Gillan: Well, if he did not say it, he will have the opportunity to do so when he returns to the Dispatch Box. He does me an injustice because I am very happy to listen to an older worker telling me what he is planning to do from the other side of the Dispatch Box. I should just like to remind him that when I was a very junior Minister, I had responsibility for older workers and introduced a campaign to get older people back into work and to try to stop discrimination against older workers, so at least I have a proud record of dealing with that problemnot a record that the right hon. Gentleman probably ever wants to admit to.

Peter Hain: It is not a question of a formal right. I have received letters from the Children's Commissioner for Walesof course I have; I am a Welsh Member of Parliament, like the hon. Gentlemanand of course he can write to me, as the Secretary of State, although he has no formal power to make representations. It is important that we do not undermine the devolution settlement and that we recognise that common-sense arrangements apply. I can assure the House that, if the commissioner identifies concerns about pensioner poverty in Wales, he or she will be able to take action to fight for older people's rights and to fight their corner with the Government.
	Against that backdrop of Labour achievement and forward thinking, the proposals for a commissioner for older people should be seen, and by establishing a commissioner, Welsh Labour is, once again, leading the way in responding to the challenges that face older people. Over the next 20 years, the concentration of older people in Wales will increase, with over-60s forming nearly one third of the population. Over the same period, the number of people aged 85 and over will increase by a third. Changing family living patterns, fewer children and the increasing number of single people will also change the shape of our society in Wales.

Peter Hain: Indeed. The commissioner will certainly be able to take into account that important agenda and any issues that my hon. Friend might raise with the commissioner on behalf of her constituents, or that that charity might raise in respect of Welsh pensioners, and the wider implications.
	The demographic changes that I have described mean we must adapt our ways of working to engage older people fully and plan for the significant social and other changes that we face. At present, many older people in Wales are unable to live the lives that they want or deserve because they feel marginalised and discriminated against, with too many barriers preventing them from making a full contribution. Those barriers prevent older people from using their knowledge and skills for the benefit of our economy and everyone in our society.
	It is therefore essential that we enable older people to play the fullest possible role by establishing an independent champion for all older people in Wales. Furthermore, older people are as diverse as any other group in our society, with the needs of one varying widely from the needs of another. The vital role that older people play therefore needs to encompass a wide range of issues, from employment, housing, and transport, to education and sport, as well as health, social services, pensions and long-term care.
	Here again, the commissioner will have a vital role to play, ensuring that our public services are able to provide the best possible service to all older people, helping them live as full a life as possible and making sure that they have access to all the resources they need.
	Older people today are more likely to be healthy, to be working, to be better off, and to be contributing to society as a volunteer, school governor or carer, for example. Nevertheless, there are still many older people who suffer ill health, poor housing, lack of access to services or some other disadvantage. That is particularly true in Wales, with our industrial heritage, our significant rural population, and our greater number of older people, compared with the rest of the United Kingdom. A commissioner will be a powerful advocate for those people in Wales, ensuring that their voices are heard.
	The idea for a commissioner was one of the recommendations of the advisory group on a strategy for older people in Wales. The idea was then translated into a firm commitment to establish a commissioner, made in the Welsh Labour manifesto for the 2003 Assembly elections. An advisory group subsequently chaired by the Assembly Deputy Minister with responsibility for older people, John Griffiths, and involving key stakeholders, older people and experts from across Wales, produced a report on the role and responsibilities of a commissioner. That was published for public consultation in May 2004 and contained 17 recommendations.
	The responses to the consultation showed that respondents were overwhelmingly in favour of the concept of an independent commissioner and the functions proposed for the office. Help the Aged said that the establishment of a commissioner for older people
	will place Wales at the forefront of achieving equality and justice for older people
	and
	will aid the good practice across sectors by engendering a culture of equality and dignity for older people.
	The Bill has already been the subject of consideration in the other place. As a result, it has benefited from a number of amendments that clarify and strengthen the powers of the commissioner. Important changes have been made to enable the commissioner to work jointly with other commissioners and ombudsmen and to establish an internal complaints procedure.
	My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Wales gave evidence to the Welsh Affairs Committee on the draft Bill last year, and it was also considered by the Health and Social Services Committee of the Assembly. Although its members raised a small number of issues for further consideration, the Assembly Committee was generally supportive of the Bill and its provisions.
	The Bill proposes the establishment of a commissioner who will be independent of Government and of the Assembly, and who will be able to speak on behalf of older people in Wales, helping to raise their profile and increase awareness of their needs. The Bill is firmly based on the model of the Children's Commissioner for Wales and provides for a commissioner for older people with a similar set of powers.
	The commissioner will be able to review the effect on older people in Wales of the discharge, or proposed discharge, of functions of public bodies, such as the Assembly, local authorities, local health boards, NHS trusts and further or higher education organisations in Wales. That will ensure that the work of public bodies has a positive impact on, and takes full account of, the needs of older people. For example, where the commissioner suspects the occurrence of elder abuse, as well as working with the police and local authorities, the commissioner will also be able to review the way a local authority has implemented its policies and procedures for dealing with abuse, and to make recommendations for the future.
	Today is world elder abuse awareness day, and I am proud that we are able, through this debate, to send a very clear message that elder abuse, wherever and however it occurs, is indefensible and unacceptable. The commissioner will have an important role in projecting this message and improving existing protection.
	The Bill also gives the commissioner a power to help to ensure that organisations that provide certain services to older people have arrangements for whistle-blowing and complaints that safeguard and promote the interests of older people. The commissioner will also have the power to check up on advocacy services provided in Wales.
	Another important element of the Bill is the power that it gives to the Assembly to enable the commissioner to examine individual cases and to require information, explanations or assistance from persons about the casepowers equivalent to those of the High Court. That will enable the commissioner to help individuals experiencing service failure to gather the evidence they need to press for charges or to press for change.
	The Bill also enables the commissioner to work jointly with other commissioners and ombudsmen where they may both be entitled to examine individual cases. That will prevent duplication and ensure a joined-up approach to any examination. At present, the power extends to the public services ombudsman for Wales, and there is provision for the Assembly by order to apply it to other commissioners and ombudsmen in the future. For example, the Assembly might want to add the Commission for Equality and Human Rights. That would then clarify on the face of the Bill the powers of the commissioners to act together, to share information and to prepare joint reports. Furthermore, we envisage that the working relationship between the commissioner and those other commissioners and ombudsmen will be formalised by a memorandum of understanding.
	Other powers in the Bill include the discretion to assist an individual in making a complaint or representation, to undertake research or educational activities, to issue guidance on best practice and to make reports to the Assembly on the exercise of the commissioner's functions.
	The Bill also provides for the commissioner to consider and make representations to the Assembly about any matterthis was the point raised by the hon. Member for Carmarthen, East and Dinefwr (Adam Price)relating to the interests of older people in Wales. This will allow the commissioner to raise non-devolved issues relating to the interests of older people with the Assembly, which could then take them up with the UK Government. In fact, Assembly Ministers and the Under-Secretary have already corresponded on the matter and we are committed to ensuring that the process of responding to representations made by the commissioner works as effectively and efficiently as possible and in a common-sense way, as the children's commissioner has pioneered.
	In addition, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary and I will invite the commissioner to approach us, as UK Ministers responsible for Wales, about any non-devolved matter affecting older people in Wales, just as we have done in the case of the children's commissionera point also raised by the hon. Gentleman. However, it is important to note that the commissioner will not be able to exercise his or her functions directly in relation to non-devolved issues. Those matters are properly the responsibility of the UK Government and it would not be appropriate for a commissioner established by the Assembly and for Wales to have such a remit. The provisions of the Bill therefore preserve these clear lines of democratic accountability. That is important.
	The geography of Wales means that issues affecting older people often cross local authority boundaries, as we have heard, and sometimes national boundaries, too. We have paid particular attention to ensuring that the commissioner is able to assist an older person in Wales with issues that cross the borderfor example, the commissioning of care services in England by Welsh local authorities.
	The Bill defines an older person as someone aged 60 or over. That includes people who are entitled to receive winter fuel and pension credit benefits, women aged 60 receiving the state pension, and those covered by the Assembly's free swimming and bus pass schemes, which also start at 60. This age limit strikes exactly the right balance. If it were any lowerthere were demands for thatit would have significant implications for the commissioner's potential work load. If it were any higher it would miss an important and growing section of older people. By setting the limit at 60, we will ensure that the commissioner is able to play the most effective role possible in championing the interests of older people.
	This important Bill has attracted a good deal of support in Wales from older people and their representatives and all the parties in the National Assembly. I hope that it will receive a similar degree of support on both sides of the House today in the interests of not only senior citizens in Wales, but hon. Members who want to watch England win their World cup match at 5 o'clock.
	The commissioner will provide a vital step forward in addressing ageism and discrimination against older people. The Bill provides the necessary powers to enable the commissioner to play an effective role in turning the tide against such attitudes, and it will improve the quality of life for many older people. It will deliver a real champion for the rights and interests of Welsh senior citizens, to whom Wales owes so much, and I commend it to the House.

Cheryl Gillan: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for taking the House through the details of the Billnever before have I seen a man so desperate to escape from the Dispatch Box to get to the television box!
	I commend the Government's choice of date, because this is international elder abuse day, which is apposite. International elder abuse day is being marked by the Conservative party in Walesthe leader of the Conservative group in the Assembly, Nick Bourne, is going to county hall in Monmouthshire with our older people's champion, Nick Ramsay, who, at age 31, is a fine example of a young man who is taking on the responsibilities and concerns of older people in our community.
	I am delighted to be joined on the Front Bench by my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd, West (Mr. Jones) who will make the winding-up speech, and I hope that the House will give him a warm welcome. I apologise to the House, because I shall be leaving before the winding-up speeches. I have informed the Secretary of State about the situation, which depends not on a football match but a train timeI do not have the advantage of a chauffeur-driven car to take me to Wales, so I must rely on the excellent train service this afternoon.
	I broadly welcome the Bill, but there are points of detail that it will be helpful to explore in Committee. The Bill has already been subject to detailed scrutiny in another place, and I want to place on record Conservative Members' gratitude for the sterling work of my noble Friend Lord Roberts of Conwy. In another place, he intimated that he has a vested interest in the creation of a commissioner for older people, but, notwithstanding that personal interest, I hope that he remains a champion of Welsh people, young and old, for many years to come.
	Regrettably, I need to inject a note of disharmony into proceedings. I cannot help contrasting the proper scrutiny that this Bill, which has widespread support, is receiving with what will happen to future legislation for Wales. If the Secretary of State gets his way, this Bill is likely to be the last of its kind, because the procedures set out in part 3 of the Government of Wales Bill will reduce scrutiny in this House to a one and a half hour debate on a Order in Council, which we will simply be invited to rubber-stamp. Although future provisions may be more complex and controversial than this Bill, they will receive less scrutiny on the Floor of the House here in Westminster. As the Secretary of State is all too aware, the House will return to that issue shortly.
	The Bill is relatively non-contentious. The proposal to appoint a commissioner for older people, the first anywhere in the United Kingdom, has attracted widespread support. I have read many of the contributions that have been sent in during the passage of the legislation, and it is good to see the level of support right across the board. Indeed, the idea is so good that I do not understand why the Government are not applying it uniformly across the United Kingdom, because the commissioner will not have the ability to scrutinise matters that are not delegated. Some probing will therefore be necessary in Committee to explore the Government's thinking and the reasons for not covering, for example, the whole of England and Wales.

Cheryl Gillan: Methinks that I have given the Secretary of State an opportunity to make a little party political broadcast, which was not my intention. Many of the organisations that have contributed to the thinking behind the Bill would resent the Labour label.
	Conservative Members would normally look sceptically at a proposal to establish yet another commissionerthere is a commissioner for everything these days. In this instance, however, I shall leave aside my natural scepticism, because it is possible to make a convincing case for this commissioner. As the Secretary of State has said, Wales has a growing proportion of older people compared with other parts of the United Kingdom. Currently, just more than 22 per cent. of the population of Walesabout 600,000 peopleis aged over 60 compared with 20 per cent. of the population in the United Kingdom as a whole, and more than17 per cent. of the Welsh population is aged over 64 compared with just under 16 per cent. of the UK population. Looking ahead, demographic changes in the next 20 years are expected significantly to alter the balance of the population, with the proportion of people aged 60 or over expected to reach 28 per cent.
	According to research carried out for the Welsh Assembly Government, 430,000 households in Walesone in threewill include someone aged 65 or older by 2017. In the same year, nearly 150,000 households will be headed by a person aged 75 or older, and about 50,000 households will be headed by a person aged 85 or older, which would be an increase of 56 per cent. on current figures.

Cheryl Gillan: My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. It will be interesting to see exactly what the commissioner can achieve over and above Members of Parliament and Ministers, and other representatives of older people. We shall be expecting rather a lot of this commissioner, and I am afraid that they will be expected to deliver. There is a very strong feeling, no matter where one's constituency is, that there is discrimination against older people in terms of the way in which drugs are approved for handing out and the demands made on the health service. It will be interesting to hear what the Minister has to say when we probe these issues further during the passage of the Bill.
	Because of the problems that older people have experienced and reported over the years, and because many of them are reluctant to complain about bad service or poor treatment, several organisations have argued for a dedicated commissioner who can stand up to defend and enforce older people's rights and promote age equality in service provision across the board. However, we should be under no illusions, and we certainly should not try to kid the people of Wales into believing that the commissioner will be a panacea for every problem faced by older people. Several people have rightly argued that the commissioner will be no substitute for improvements such as a better basic state pension or improved personal care. Indeed, when the Bill was published, Help the Aged warned that
	pensions reform and an end to means-tested pensions would do more to improve the lives of pensioner households.
	Nor will the commissioner do much to alleviate the swingeing 94 per cent.or 467increase in band D council tax that has hammered many older people in Wales, or to sort out the chronic problems of the health service in Wales, where older people are reckoned to account for about 60 per cent. of spending. Moreover, legislation alone will not eradicate discrimination overnight. That requires a change of attitudes, which will, unfortunately, take time. However, anything that the newly appointed commissioner can do to speed up the process will be welcome.
	The Secretary of State outlined the various stages through which the Bill has passed, but rather than dwell on those I want to touch on some of the issues that arose as it made its way through the other place and which we may wish to explore in Committee. I am still not entirely clear about the precise role that the Government envisage for the commissioner or what is the primary function of that office. Is the commissioner a kind of Ofwat or Ofcom for the elderly, or something more? I am interested in what the Secretary of State said about the practical and common-sense operation of the system. How does he envisage that working?
	The Government call the commissioner an independent champion of older people and have given him a wide range of quasi-judicial powers. For example, clause 13 provides him with sweeping powers of entry, while clauses 9 and 11 confer on him, in carrying out some of his duties, the same powers as the High Court. In other words, in certain cases he, or she, may have the power to act as investigator, judge and jury. We will want to examine the circumstances in which those powers are to be exercised, as well as the extent of the envisaged operations of the commissioner's staff. Another of the commissioner's principal functions will be to make representations to the National Assembly on matters affecting the interests of older peoplealmost, in effect, usurping at worst, or duplicating at best, the role of Ministers. We will seek clarification on those areas and on the way in which the commissioner and his staff will work with, or across, the Welsh Assembly Government, the Welsh Assembly and other organisations.
	The Bill predates by some months the publication of the Government of Wales Bill, which formally ends the corporate Assembly and establishes the executive and legislative functions by establishing a Welsh Assembly Government as a distinctive entity. Does the Secretary of State envisage that the commissioner's main representations will be made to the relevant Minister in the Assembly Government or to the Assembly itself, and how will that relationship work?
	Finance is another matter of concern. The office of the commissioner will be funded by the National Assembly out of money that has already been allocated to it under the block grant from Westminster. Start-up costs are estimated at 500,000, with annual running costs for the commissioner and a predicted staff of about 30 estimated at 1.5 million. We will want to know exactly what limits will be placed on that expenditure, how the office will operate, and what limits will be placed on the number of staff that the commissioner can employ. What discussions have been held with the First Minister and Members of the Welsh Assembly Government to establish where the money to run this operation will come from, and which areas of expenditure in Wales will be cut or sacrificed in order to find it? What could have been done with that money if it had been spent directly on older people and their needs? What other Departments in the Assembly will make cuts in their services to the elderly to pay for the new operation? Will they face some reductions in order to accommodate the large amount of money that has to be found in the budget for the commissioner?
	We believe that the commissioner should be independent and should make representations about the effectiveness of the operations of the Welsh Assembly Government and Ministers. But how can that happen if he is funded directly by the same Welsh Ministers upon whose performance he will be delivering a critical analysis? That is the scenario as a consequence of schedule 1 of the Bill and schedule 11 of the Government of Wales Bill. Responsibility for funding the commissioner will be transferred from the Assembly to Welsh Ministers, as it will in respect of the children's commissioner. As my noble Friend Baroness Noakes pointed out in the other place, the result is that in future the commissioner's funding is to be transferred to the very people from whom they are supposed to be independent. I am sure the Secretary of State will agree that that is illogical and undermines the Government's argument that the commissioner will be an independent champion of older people. We should explore that in Committee.
	It is particularly relevant to repeat that the work of the commissioner will not act as a panacea given that under clause 2 the commissioner's powers to make representations on behalf of older people will, as the Secretary of State confirmed, be confined to matters that are devolved to the National Assembly. He must be aware that a great many of the issues that affect older people in Wales will still be decided here in Westminsterpensions and benefits being two obvious examples. In addition, the limitation on the commissioner's exercise of powers to devolved areas only is unrealistic as, in the words of my noble Friend Lord Roberts,
	Individual cases do not...fall neatly into devolved or non-devolved areas.[ Official Report, House of Lords,15 February 2006; Vol. 678, c. 1240.]
	My noble Friend speaks with considerable experience of political life in Wales, both as a long-serving Member of this House and as a Minister.
	Rather than simply making representations to the Assembly, which will then decide what, if any, action to take, would not it make sense to adopt a more pragmatic approach? I sense that the Secretary of State is considering that. Could not we amend the Bill so that, in some circumstances, the commissioner could have direct access to the relevant Secretary of State if he or she deems it necessary? I hope such an amendment will be considered in Committee without the Government appearing to lose face. We hope that we can work together constructively to get the measure right before it reaches the statute book.

Cheryl Gillan: My hon. Friend looks eternally young to me and I shall always remind the Secretary of State that I am younger than him, as I told him when he asked my age behind the Chair earlier.
	Despite the Government's best intentions, older people in Wales will face the same problems and the Bill will not address, let alone, resolve many of them. Many problems have been created by a Labour regime in Wales that has been unable to bring itself to embark on the reforms necessary to deliver the improved public services on which so many disadvantaged and vulnerable people depend.
	Although the measure has a great deal of merit, it should not pass through the House without detailed scrutiny. I want to ensure that the establishment of a commissioner for older people in Wales does not replace the work of Assembly Members or Ministers in this House or the Assembly. I hope that we can produce a good Bill that will, in turn, establish something beneficial for older people in Wales.
	The Bill is not perfect and requires more work. However, with that proviso, I am pleased to wish it well. The Secretary of State and all hon. Members who are looking forward to the football match will be happy to know that I have no intention of opposing Second Reading.

Roger Williams: Welsh Liberal Democrats also welcome the Bill and will not oppose its Second Reading. However, we shall raise a number of points in Committee because we believe that the Bill could be strengthened to protect older people in Wales.
	I would like to acknowledge the long hours and hard work that the noble Lords have put in on the Bill in the other place. I particularly want to pay tribute to the dedication and tenacity of Lord Roberts, Lord Livsey and Lord Thomas, who performed their duties with great energy and enthusiasm.
	When the Government revealed their White Paper last year, the Secretary of State described it in his usual understated way as a trailblazing Bill for Wales, and I think that he used the term again this afternoon. I wish that we could share his excitement. However, we must question exactly what kind of a trail the Bill is blazing for Wales. The Prime Minister has famously said that his greatest political regret was not going far enough with his policies on reform. In my opinion, the Bill comes close to falling into that trap. Like the Government of Wales Bill, it moves us in the right direction but falls well short of where it should be. This is progress by pigeon step rather than a great leap forward. I think that it was the Prime Minister who also said that the Labour Government were at their best when they were at their boldest. The Bill does not show the Government being bold; it shows them at their most timid.
	Wales has a large and growing population of older people. More than 20 per cent. of the population in Wales are over 60, with that population likely to rise in the next 20 years. By 2021, nearly 500,000 households in Wales will contain at least one person over the age of 65. Policies directed at helping to improve the lives of this large sector of Welsh society are very welcome, not least because many older people in Wales are vulnerable, financially and socially. We applaud the Government's intentions with this policy, but we have some serious reservations about the Bill.
	For the commissioner to be effective, he must have a sufficiently broad remit and sufficiently tough powers, and he must be given a voice in the relevant corridors of power. The most pressing failure of the Bill is the commissioner's relatively weak powers in relation to non-devolved matters. At present, the commissioner's input on issues such as pensions, benefits and employment is significantly compromised. Let us imagine that the commissioner had been in place last November, and had seen the Turner report, the Government's response and the new pensions White Paper all come and go. According to the Bill, the commissioner would have had no right to communicate directly with the Ministers responsible for an enormously influential step-change in pensions policy. His voice would have been limited on an issue of seismic importance for the people he was paid to represent. I still find it incredible that a pensioner in Wales will be able to write to the Chancellor of the Exchequer or the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, yet the commissioner will not be allowed make any such input to them directly.

Roger Williams: I agree with the hon. Lady, and I am sure that we will raise these points in Committee. Our constituents in Wales want the commissioner to have direct access to the person who is likely to be able to achieve a result, either for themselves on a personal basis or for a group of people involved in a particular issue. The hon. Lady has pointed out one of the issues involved, namely the barring of people from working with vulnerable persons.
	Figures obtained by the Welsh Liberal Democrats suggest that, of all the complaints made by older people to citizen's advice bureaux, 80 per cent. are concerned with pensions and tax credits. Needless to say, neither of these subjects is devolved. As well as being unable to meet directly with Ministers on these issues, the commissioner will be unable to take up individual cases on non-devolved matters. On the basis of those figures, and of the information from the citizen's advice bureaux, the commissioner would be able to help with only one in five of the cases brought to him.
	Giving the commissioner the power to make direct representations to UK Ministers would give greater support to elderly people in Wales. Because of that, we would like the commissioner to have the ability to make direct representations to Westminster Ministers. He will be paid and employed by the Assembly and have the right to comment on the implications for older people of actions taken by a whole range of bodies, including the Assembly, the Environment Agency, and local health boards and trusts. Why should he not have the right to give direct feedback to the one body that will arguably have a greater effect on the lives of pensioners in Wales than any other: the UK Government?
	We are slightly concerned to note the number of amendments tabled by the Government in the other place, and the fact that the Assembly plenary debate on this issue took place on the day after the Bill's Second Reading in the House of Lords. That could lead people to suppose that the Government were rushing the Bill through, or that they had got their procedure mixed up. Confusion will arise, because people in Wales will not know what the commissioner's role is in relation to devolved and non-devolved matters. It needs to be absolutely clear, not only to us and to the Lords, but to the older people in Wales who will be using this service, what the commissioner can and cannot do. We in this place usually know the difference between what is devolved and what is not, although I sometimes have difficulty when constituents ask me a question about a particular issue. I do not have the Government of Wales Act 1998 ingrained on my soul at the moment.
	People will assume that an older people's commissioner will deal with all issues affecting older people. I imagine that there will be a great deal of surprise in Llandrindod when they learn that the commissioner for older people will not be able to speak to the Government about pensions, for example. The issue of clarity is paramount, and I would grateful if the Minister expanded on how he envisages the older persons' commissioner working alongside similar posts, such as the public services ombudsman and the parliamentary ombudsman. The Secretary of State touched on that issue, which is a significant one. We are all aware of the dangers of excessive bureaucracy and service duplication, and it is important that the Bill should not create further confusion and complication for service users.
	There are other limitations in the Bill that could seriously affect the commissioner's ability to do his job successfully. As has been mentioned, today is world elder abuse awareness day, and I am sure the whole House will join me in congratulating its organisers on their great work in highlighting what is a very serious problem. The Action on Elder Abuse helpline tells us that, in 2003-04, 22,000 people in Wales aged over 65 resided in care homes. Some 45 per cent. of those care homes were independently funded, 34 per cent. were run by local authorities and provided nursing care, and 21 per cent. were run by local authorities with no nursing care provided.
	In 2004, the Action on Elder Abuse helpline received 280 calls reporting 428 instances of alleged abuse,37 per cent. of which related to psychological abuse,21 per cent. to financial abuse, 16 per cent. to physical abuse, 12 per cent. to neglect and 2 per cent. to sexual abuse. Some 20 per cent. of such abuse occurred in care homes, and 36 per cent. of those suffering abuse in care homes who complained of such abuse identified paid workers as their abusers. Help the Aged has noted that residents in any care home funded or owned by a local authority can exercise their human rights. However, those in privately run care homes, or those who are placed in local authority-run care homes but who pay for their care, are not legally protected by the Human Rights Act 1998. As many as nine out of 10 care homes in the UK are operated by private organisations. Two thirds of people living in those homes are paid for by local councils. This is an issue for the 1998 Act, but it also raises the question of where the commissioner will fit in with dealing with it. He needs to contribute to a change in the law; if he does not, he will be nothing but a toothless tiger.

Julie Morgan: Does the hon. Gentleman not welcome the clause allowing the commissioner to enter homes such as those that he describes?

Roger Williams: Help the Aged has expressed concern about the question of the commissioner's having power to enter such homes. We will get back to Help the Aged on this issue, because it is still voicing some concerns. We will have to examine the relevant clause in Committee.
	Is this Bill the right way forward for the Government to improve the lives of older people in Wales? There is much that the Government should be doing to aid older people. Scrapping council tax would be a start, as that regressive and unfair tax hits Welsh pensioners harder than anyone else. When the Lyons report concludes later this year, I hope that the Government will review their reactionary approach and radically reform that punitive Tory tax policy.
	I shall now make mention of a constituency issue relating to the elderly. People who live in park homesmost Members have park homes in their constituenciesare often very vulnerable. The council tax revaluation hit park home owners hard. A number of sites where there were no park homes in any band other than band A now have homes in bands A, B, C and D, which has led to huge increases in the council tax paid. Many people move into park homes later in life to get some capital out of their bricks-and-mortar homes and to have a cheaper lifestyle. The legislation that sets out how council tax valuation should be done covers England and Wales, yet it seems to be implemented differently in Wales from how it is in England. If the commissioner looks into that issue, that will be of great benefit to elderly people living in park homes.
	On pensions, many of the Government's new proposals are welcome and in line with Liberal Democrat policy. But those new proposals will still lean heavily on the broken crutch of means testing, which is failing Welsh pensioners. Currently, as many as 150,000 Welsh pensioners are not getting the pensions that they need and are entitled to because of failures in means-testing. My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, Central (Jenny Willott) has highlighted how many pensioners in Wales are not applying for the pension credit. As a body, Welsh pensioners are probably losing almost 200 million a year.
	Labour's Government in the Welsh Assembly promised free personal care for the disabled, but they have reneged on that manifesto pledge, refusing to help many of those who are unable to help themselves. In Scotland, where the Liberal Democrats are in power with the Labour party, all older people get free personal care, thus easing the burden on hospital services and granting to some of the most vulnerable people in our society quality care in their own homes, and removing the threat of having to sell their homes to fund their care.
	I make those points because they raise further questions about the role of the commissioner for older people. We know, by and large, what problems older people in Wales face. They face disproportionate tax burdens, an inefficient tax credits system and an unhelpful health system. The commissioner can help to raise the profile of these issues, but his appointment cannot be a substitute for direct and progressive policy changes on pensions, benefits, housing and welfare. An old people's commissioner who cannot give direct feedback to Ministers on a matter as important as pensions is like a transport commissioner who cannot speak directly to the Secretary of State for Transport. Unless the commissioner can pass direct judgment on the primary issues affecting older people, his ability to represent older people in Wales will be compromised.
	The Bill has potential. A commissioner with teeth, and with a broad mandate and an expanded field of vision, could play an important role in representing the one in five people in Wales who are over 60 years old. We will support the Bill today and we will table amendments in Committee to enhance the scope of the commissioner's role. If implemented in the right way, the new role could have a genuinely beneficial impact on older people in Wales; if it is not, the commissioner is in danger of being a classic new Labour projectone of surface over substance, publicity over reform, and symbolism over action. Unless we lend due clarity and muscle to the commissioner's role, we risk making him a toothless tiger who is unable to exert any significant influence on devolved issues such as pensions, benefits and employment, all of which are vital to pensioners in Wales.

Madeleine Moon: I welcome the opportunity to speak in this debate. I promise that I shall be brief, so that Members can get to their television sets and so that the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) can catch her train. She clearly knows very little about Wales if she thinks that First Great Western runs an excellent train service there; it is one of the worst operating in the UK. However, let us move on.
	I want to begin by referring to the work of my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Leicestershire (David Taylor), whose private Member's Bill of three years ago set the scene for today's debate. I want also to acknowledge the role that John Griffiths, AM, who has recently been appointed carers' champion in the Assembly, has played in bringing this Bill before the House today.
	Before entering this House, I spent 30 years working with vulnerable people alongside my colleagues in social services and the Care Standards Inspectorate for Wales, providing services and seeking to drive up standards, and spending far too much time investigating abusethe hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Mr. Williams) referred to this issuespecifically abuse of older people.
	I, too, want to acknowledge that today is world elder abuse awareness day. Unlike the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire, I think that the role of commissioner for older people will provide critical extra value for Wales in protecting vulnerable individuals. It will not weaken one iota the Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Bill that we will consider on MondayI hope to be called to speak on that Bill, tooif anything, it will strengthen it.
	I have considered the Bill as someone with a background of work in raising standards and awareness of the problems people face. We need people with tenacity, and a willingness to look for problems and find solutions. It is a sad fact that too many people, especially on issues of abuse, do not want to accept what happens. They would prefer to find a way not to look for or find such problems. That is why I welcome the general functions outlined in clause 2(1)(a) to (d), which are wide ranging. The review arrangements outlined in clause 5 are also comprehensive.
	Advocacy is a much underrated function and when I was an inspector, care home owners had not really begun to appreciate how vital it is. I welcome the commissioner's role in tackling the issue and the fact that he or she will be able to consider the availability of advocacy and the training for those working as advocates. The job requires specific training and the capacity to undertake the role. The competency of those working as advocates must be examined and the commissioner will have the opportunity to do so. The functioning of advocacy services and their general availability across Wales will also come under the purview of the commissioner, and we should all welcome that.
	The commissioner will also be able to consider complaints. When I was an inspector I used to tell care home owners, who do not like receiving complaints, that they were their best friend. A complaint tells them what they can improve, what should be changed and what is not working. Unfortunately, too many people see a complaint as a threat.
	Complaints can also be a way of discovering underlying abuse. For example, I inspected a care home and the complaints book said that a service user had complained that her bath water was cold. Alongside was the handwritten report of the investigation of the complaint by the staff at the care home, which said, Add more hot water. That seems a simple solution, but I asked the owner of the home to bring me her monitoring records for the water temperatures in the home. The records revealed that water temperatures were incredibly lowlittle above tepid. I pointed out to the owner that it would not have mattered how many hours the hot tap had been run for, the bath water would still have been cold. The handyman for the home said that he thought that as long as water temperatures were below the required maximum temperature they were all right. The staff had not checked and a doubly incontinent service user, who needed frequent bathing, had been forced to suffer the indignity of cold baths. That is the sort of abusive and neglectful treatment that can be picked up through casual examination of complaints. I am glad that the commissioner will also have the ability to examine complaints, because that will help to raise standards and support service users.
	Whistleblowing will also come under the commissioner's purview and it is, all too often, the way abuse is revealed. It is often the capacity to retain anonymity that allows someone to come forward with information on something about which they are not happy, so that something can be done. I agree with the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire that the commissioner will have a vital role in considering how best to assess people to determine who should be excluded from working in care settings, so that Wales has the most robust system possible. I have had experience of whistleblowing on hours worked by staff, some of whom worked for more than 90 hours a week caring for vulnerable people, including those who were aggressive and difficult to manage. When staff are that tired, they do not provide the best quality of care.
	Why do we need a commissioner? After all, we already have care standards inspectors, protection of vulnerable adults procedures, an ombudsman and complaints procedures. The question can best be answered by giving an example of why we needed the children's commissioner. It is a case that I deal with personally and shows how the necessary change would not have been made without the involvement of the children's commissioner. I was leaving the House one Thursday to travel back to my constituency when I received a telephone call from a constituent, asking me to call back as a matter of urgency. I was in a taxi, which was not the right place for the call, so I asked my office to deal with it. The caller was a gentleman whose father-in-law had died more than a year previously and who, six years before his death, had worked as a support worker taking vulnerable young children to school. When clearing the deceased man's house, the family discovered that, only a few days earlier, he had been sent a full report of every child with a disability and who needed to attend school in my constituency and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies). The list included the children's names, addresses, dates of birth, schools attended, details of their disabilities and the times of collection from home and return from school. Imagine if such information had got into the hands of someone who wanted to abuse children.
	I went to the local authority's chief executive, but he did nothing and passed it on to the department responsible for sending out the tender. It said that it was merely following standard industry practice. I went to the local authority's leaderwho is, I have to say, a Liberal Democratwho was initially very concerned, but then discovered that it had happened under the Labour administration so was less concerned because she could not be held accountable for it. No action was taken. The director of personal services was unable to carry out an investigation because it was August and people were on holiday. I went to the information commissioner, who was also unable to do anything.
	Then I wrote to the children's commissioner. In fairness, he initially thought that it could not be happening. He could not believe that such information was being sent to taxi companies, some of which had gone out of business or changed address. In the example of my constituent's father-in-law, he had been dead for more than a year and had not been not involved in school transport work for six years before that. The information was lying around in the public realm. Once the children's commissioner appreciated the risk, it took him two minutes to make the commitment to change the situation. He was the only person who did and that is reason enough to have an older people's commissioner in Wales to perform a similar function on their behalf. That is the sort of person we need as commissionersomeone who wants to take the bull by the horns, grapple with problems and insist on change taking place. Incidentally, the children's commissioner found that Bridgend was not the only local authority in Wales operating that policy. It was happening in other local authorities and the commissioner was able to ensure that children in other areas were protected.
	Clause 16 provides for the commissioner for older people to work with the public services ombudsman for Wales. Some might claim that that is duplication and that I could have gone to the public services ombudsman.
	I also welcome clause 8 on assistance and clause 10 on the examination of cases. It will be necessary to examine closely the regulations on those functions, but I welcome the provision of assistance to older people in making complaints, because that will make a big difference. Those clauses also mean that the commissioner will assist older people and that they will not be required to find their way through a difficult and complex process on their own. The local government ombudsman focuses on maladministration and personal injustice, but is passive rather than proactive.
	I shall illustrate that with another constituency case of mine. I sent a complaint to a highly respected voluntary organisation about the way in which my local authority had dealt with a particular matter. The local government ombudsman had been sent a number of papers and appropriate information, but the only proactive step that he took before he decided that he needed to do nothing was to ring up a local authority officer. The officer said that the authority had been worried about the matter for ages and that everything was fineand that was it. One telephone call was made, and no further action was taken. I spoke to the ombudsman on the telephone, and got the impression that he did not think that it was vital that he got a letter of confirmation from the local authority officer about the actions that the authority had taken.
	In contrast, the commissioner will be proactive rather than passive. He will support people who make complaints, and help them to put the evidence together. He will seek information and mount challenges on older people's behalf. That is the big strength of the role, and it is something that we have been missing.
	However, I have some concerns about schedules 2 and 3, which list those persons whose functions are subject to review under clause 3, and to review and monitoring under clause 5. Neither schedule mentions the Care Standards Inspectorate for Wales. Other bodies that have recently been absorbed into the Assembly's functionssuch as the Wales Tourist Board and the Welsh Development Agencyare included in schedule 3, so why is the CSIW missing? I hope that the Government accept that it should be included.
	I raise that point for two reasons. First, clause 3(1)(c) refers to
	the discharge or proposed discharge in relation to Wales of a relevant function of a person mentioned in schedule 2.
	I am worried that that would exclude the CSIW, as it is not mentioned there. Secondly, clause 3 (2)(c) defines a relevant function as
	any other person mentioned in schedule 2.
	Again, the CSIW is not mentioned in schedule 2. I recognise that clause 4 will allow the Assembly to add it at a later date, but it would be better to include it before the Bill leaves this House.
	The reason why I want the CSIW to be included in schedule 2 is best explained by reference to an Adjournment debate held in June last year, just after I came to the House. I shall not mention the specific case involved, as it is still under consideration, but I want to refer to the general concept highlighted in that debate.
	The Registered Homes Act 1984 set out the procedure when a registration authority wanted to remove a care home's registration. It said that, at tribunal, the decision would be based on the situation in the home at the time that the authority made its decision to withdraw registration. Under the Care Standards Act 2000, however, the care standards tribunal must make a decision based on the situation at the time of the tribunal hearing itself.
	That would appear to mean that care homes are able to do nothing and make no changes until the tribunal hearing. When the tribunal sits, they can make a few changes and demonstrate that they will make improvements, with the result that they can no longer be deregistered.
	We must find ways to change that requirement. Some homes play the game and do not protect vulnerable peoplethey do not meet required care standards or they use legal niceties to avoid their responsibilities to older people. Such homes must be challenged. I hope that the older people's commissioner will use clause 2(1)(d)which requires him to
	keep under review the adequacy and effectiveness of law affecting the interests of older people
	to tackle the problems posed by the Care Standards Act 2000 and make the changes needed to protect those who live in old people's homes in Wales.
	The older people's commissioner will have 30 staff. Start-up costs are estimated at 0.5 million, and running costs in the first full year of operation at1.5 million. I assume that the funding will come from the Assembly, and Opposition Members have asked about the services that will have to be cut to meetthe cost. That is an appalling question, given that1.5 million is a drop in the ocean when compared with the need to protect older people. The commissioner and his 30 staff members will proactively fight for older people and represent their needs. They will make sure that the necessary services provided to older people are of the requisite standard.
	With this Bill, the Government are recognising that Wales is a small country with a high percentage of older people. They are giving those people priority, and making it clear that they are valued members of the Welsh community. We must insist that older peoplein this generation and in times to comeget the best quality services. Establishing a commissioner for older people is the way to ensure that that happens.

Adam Price: In the interests of Anglo-Welsh relationsand of any Wrexham supporters who might be in our midstI too shall try to keep my comments fairly brief.
	I and my party support the principle behind this important Bill, and the model of the commissioner that is emerging is worth celebrating. Indeed, my party is calling for a language commissioner as well.
	There is a difference between an ombudsman and a commissioner. The ombudsman model was developed in Scandinavia around the beginning of the 20th century, and was designed to provide a complaints procedure in cases of maladministration. The commissioner will not be a quango; the post has no role in delivery and is therefore entirely independent of the Executive, whose policies are to be investigated. The commissioner model includes elements of the traditional ombudsman role, but it has a much wider remit to investigate general matters of public policy, and I am sure that the Assembly will apply the commissioner model to other policy areas in the future.
	It is great to see Wales engaging in such an important form of social innovation, and on a global scale. There are ombudsmen for older people in other jurisdictions, but the commissioner for older people in Wales will be the first post of its kind to be created in the world, and that is a credit to the Assembly Government.
	The proposal to establish a commissioner for older people has all-party support. It was a Labour party manifesto commitmentone of the few that the Labour Government in Cardiff Bay are on course to deliver.
	I want to echo the comments made by the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Mr. Williams). By and large, my party supports the principle behind the Bill, although we have some concerns about the responsibility for non-devolved areas. Moreover, I bristled a little when the hon. Gentleman called for the commissioner to have teeth. In this context, that is slightly insensitive and might fall foul of anti-discrimination measures[ Laughter.]but I think we got the point.
	We are revisiting a problem that arose in our debates on the children's commissioner: in these post-devolutionary times, how do we ensure accountability when there is some blurring of the lines of responsibility? Given the still complex nature of the devolution settlement in Wales, welet alone our constituentsoften struggle to get our minds around such issues. The children's commissioner does not have full powers to investigate where a child is placed in care through the courts, but has such powers in relation to a sibling who is in care voluntarily. That is the type of problem that will arise if the Bill's provisions on non-devolved matters remain as they are.
	Clause 2(2) states that the powers of the commissioner
	are exercisable only in relation to fields in which the Assembly has functions.
	That is clear. The commissioner will not have those powers in relation to anything that is non-devolved. There will be no power to promote awareness or provision, to encourage best practice or to keep under review any non-devolved matter. On non-devolved matters, the commissioner will have only the right to make representations, under subsection (3); there will be no power to investigate. That is the key issue.
	Indeed, clause 10(2) makes it clear that the commissioner will have no power to investigate individual complaints relating to non-devolved matters. Under clause 15(2) the commissioner will have no power to make reports on non-devolved matters. Another clause provides that the commissioner will have no power to initiate research in relation to non-devolved matters. Those are critical points. The commissioner will of course have the rightlike the3 million people of Walesto make representations by writing a letter to the Secretary of State or the Minister, but the key issue is the basis for such representations. If the commissioner has no power to review a non-devolved policy area, no power to commission or conduct research on a non-devolved power relating to older people in Wales and no power to investigate individual complaints, on what basis will the representations be made?
	The Government rightly support the principle of evidence-based policy making. Without those statutory powers the commissioner for older people in Wales will be open to legal challenge. The commissioner will be acting ultra vires if he or she initiates research or undertakes a review of non-devolved policy. If the commissioner merely writes to the Secretary of State, the Secretary of State will have the perfect right to say, Well, what's your proof? There will be no proof because the commissioner has no power to investigate. That is the key issue.
	Of course, as the Secretary of State said, representations can be made informally. I am sure that the door of the Wales Office is always open, even to members of my party from time to time, when we behave ourselves. The key issue is not the right to write a letter or to go to see the Secretary of State; it is whether the commissioner has the right to investigate and the power to make a report, which will give a formal basis for a structured discussion with Westminster Ministers.
	The commissioner will have the power to make representations to the Assembly, but there is no requirement for the Assembly to respond, nor for it to pass such representations to the Westminster Government and thus, at the end of that rather circumlocutory process, for the Westminster Government to respond at all. The key problem is that the Bill gives us no confidence about non-devolved matters, many of which have been mentioned. Some aspects of health and education have been devolved but others are non-devolved. Under the Bill, there is no clear process whereby the commissioner will be able to consider those matters comprehensively, which seriously weakens the Government's stated intent for the measure. It weakens the independence of the commissioner. If he or she has no right to communicate directly with the Government but has to go via the Assembly Government, not only will there be questions about the commissioner's independence from the Assembly Government, but the comprehensiveness of the commissioner's role as champion and advocate will be weakened.
	Older people, like younger and middle-aged people in Wales, are not necessarily constitutional experts and might not understand the intricacies of the devolution settlement. They see serviceswhoever provides themand they want the older people's commissioner to take up their problems, regardless of whether Westminster or Cardiff Bay is accountable according to the settlement. That is the problem facing the Government under the Bill as currently drafted. Indeed, it is line with what the people of Wales are saying.
	One of the questions in the consultation exercise conducted by the National Assembly for Wales was:
	Do you agree that the new powers establishing the Commission should include the power to make representations directly to the UK Government on issues of importance to older people in Wales?
	One hundred and thirty-nine respondents agreed that the commissioner should have the formal power to make direct representations; only two disagreed. It is absolutely clear that stakeholder and representative organisations, including Age Concern and Help the Aged, support the principle that the commissioner be given formal powers on non-devolved matters. That was the position of the Welsh Assembly's advisory group on setting up the older people's commissioner and it was also taken by a majority of the Assembly's Health and Social Services Committee, including its Labour members. There is wide consensus in Wales that the commissioner should have the power to initiate research and make reports on areas of non-devolved policy. That would be the basis for the fireside chats down the road at Gwydyr House.
	Finally, I want to touch on the definition of age, on which the shadow Secretary of State for Wales expounded. It is an important issue. In the consultation, the majority of the consultees came out in favour of the principle of flexibility and supported giving the commissioner the right to look at issues involving people aged 50-plus, although accepting the general definition of 60, which has not changed since the Bill was in draft form. There should be some flexibility, especially in employment-related matters where age discrimination is as serious, if not more serious, in Wales, due to our demographic. It is likely that the commissioner for older people in Wales will be up and running before the UK commission for equality and human rights, so I urge the Minister to look again at flexibility, possibly through regulation, in terms of age-related issues that affect people at 50 plus. That is the age for the starting-point of the Welsh Assembly Government's welcome and innovative older people's strategy, so there should be some flexibility under the Bill, too. Clearly, as has been mentioned, there are also health issues for the 50-plus cohort, particularly in relation to Alzheimer's and other dementia-related diseases. I appeal to the Minister for flexibility in the definition of the age, if possible.
	May we please give the older people's commissioner the power to investigate quite legitimately areas of policy that traverse non-devolved and devolved matters? Clearly, they will be of concern to older people in Wales.

Julie Morgan: It is a pleasure to speak in this debate and to follow the hon. Member for Carmarthen, East and Dinefwr (Adam Price). I welcome the Bill and see it as part of the Labour Government in Wales and the Labour Government in Westminster delivering for older people in Wales. I welcome the fact that there is all-party support for the Bill. I was heavily involved in setting up the children's commissioner. I was on the Committee for the Care Standards Bill and then the Bill to set up the children's commissioner. I welcome the fact that the commissioner for older people has been modelled on the Children's Commissioner for Wales. As the previous speaker said, the role includes taking up complaints and fighting against injustice, but it also encompasses the power to advocate things in relation to wider issues.
	In Wales, the children's commissioner has generally been regarded as a success. The commissioner has been independent and the body has succeeded in influencing the Assembly. It has been highly critical of the Assembly over certain issues and has had a response. Peter Clarke has been seen as a champion for children and I hope that the person who holds the post that we are discussing will be seen as a champion for older people. I hope that the appointment process will draw in older people in the way that the appointment process for the children's commissioner drew in children. Children played a vital role in the appointment of the commissioner.
	We need a champion for older people in Wales, because the elderly suffer from discrimination in many ways. A recent report by Age Concern said that 29 per cent. of people reported suffering age discrimination. That is more than any other type of discrimination. We are all living longer, which is a matter for rejoicing, but it does cause issues for society, particularly in relation to health and pensions. I am pleased that the Assembly's policies have emphasised keeping older people active and healthy. The free bus travel, which was pioneered by the Assembly Member for my seat, Sue Essex, has been a huge success. My constituents have told me that it has enabled many of them to travel around, be active and get out in a way that they have not been able to do before. In the same way, the free swimming for older people is a positive affirmation of how older people can keep active and play a valuable role in society. The appointment of an commissioner for older people will emphasise the positive, valued contribution that older people make to society, as well as looking at all the problems that can arise in the health care service and the points that my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend (Mrs. Moon) mentioned.
	I want to raise a few specific points about the Bill with the Minister. Some of them have been covered already by several speakers and by the Secretary of State in his introduction. One of the main concerns for elderly people is finance in old age. We know that Wales, on the whole, is a poor country and many elderly people live in poverty. I strongly support the Government's White Paper. It is a good basis on which to move forward for the future. It is important to recognise what a big step that White Paper is. If we look at the situation of women, we see that they have fared badly with pensions. We all know why that is: they have been looking after children or elderly people and have not been able to build up a pension contribution record.
	It is difficult to separate the different strands in people's livesfinance, caring and health needs. As other speakers have said, some of those issues are devolved and some are not. It would be helpful if, when he responds, the Minister could again spell out the routes by which those different aspects of people's lives can be dealt with by the different people who are taking responsibility for them. We went through the debate about devolved and non-devolved issues when the children's commissioner was set up and I do not want to go on about it any more today. However, the reason these different problems have surfaced when setting up the children's commissioner, and now this commissioner, is linked to the devolution settlement. We have to find practical ways forward and the children's commissioner has done that, but I would be grateful if the Minister could go over what mechanisms are going to be used.
	The other point that I wanted to raise was about how the commissioner will relate to similar posts, such as the ombudsman who is in post at the moment and, in particular, the new equality and human rights commission, which is not mentioned in the Billbecause it has not been set up yet. Given that that commission will have a specific responsibility for age discrimination, it is important that clear links are established between the two bodies. I assume that thought has been given to how they will relate to each other.
	There is also the issue of support for the commissioner. As other speakers have said, this is the first post of its kind in the UK and possibly in the world. I hope that the other countries in the UK will follow, as happened with the children's commissioner. However, when the children's commissioner took up his post, there was an established network of children's commissioners and ombudsmen throughout Europe and the world. Long before the children's commissioner was appointed, I can remember an inspirational meeting in Cardiff with the Danish children's ombudsman, at which the idea of a children's commissioner in Wales was raised. When the appointment was made, the children's commissioner had a network to relate to immediately and he was able to link in to the sort of issues that were being discussed on that network. He was able to get support from that organisation. He also relates to the children's commissioners who have been appointed in all the other devolved bodies in the UK and now in England. It is quite important to think about where the commissioner for older people will fit in. Who will he relate to, who will support him, who will raise the issues and what will there be agreement on?
	It is important that the commissioner makes links with elderly people in the different ethnic communities in Wales. I know that, older people in many of those communities are isolated, particularly if they cannot speak the language. It is important that the commissioner is for everybody in Wales, including the ethnic communities.
	I hope that the commissioner will campaign on general issues, as well as dealing with problems in care homes and things that have to be put right. I hope that he will be able to campaign for a general improvement in the community and society. I know that one of the main issues that came up when Peter Clarke was going round talking to children about what was most important to them was the state of school toilets. He has campaigned about toilets and, in my area, there has been a considerable improvement in the toilets for children. I hope that the same thing will happen with elderly people.
	One of the issues that elderly people bring up a lot with me is the lack of local facilities. As do many other people in the community, they bemoan the loss of small corner shops and the demise of small local shopping centres. I attended a packed meeting in the week before last in Birchgrove, which is in the Heath area of my constituency. Many of the people at the meeting were elderly, and they were protesting about another Tesco Extra coming to a street in the Heath outside the main shopping area. They fear that the local corner shops that they can get to easily will disappear because those shops will not be able to compete. They thus worry that they will lose the personal service that they receive. A lot of the worry about post offices came from elderly people who depended on being able to get to their local facilities.
	I hope that the commissioner for older people will take up such issues because they affect the quality of life of many elderly people. Many such people have a good pattern to their lives. They go down to the local shop to get a newspaper and groceries, but that pattern of life has been disrupted in our area by the demise of some of the local shopping centres.
	The Bill is good. We need to discuss aspects of it further, but they really relate to the fact that devolution has happened and we have an Assembly in Wales. We need to try to work out a way of dealing with devolved and non-devolved matters. I support the Bill.

David Jones: As the father of two extremely avid Wrexham supporters, I assure the Secretary of State and everyone else in the Chamber that I will not detain the House any longer than is absolutely necessary.
	We have had an interesting debate. It is clear that the Bill has received a broad welcome from hon. Members on both sides of the House. Indeed, it would be strange if that was not the case. The problems faced by older people in Wales and, indeed, the whole of the United Kingdom are well known and have been touched on by many hon. Members. Poor housing, poor nutrition, inadequate transport services and employment discrimination are but a few of the problems faced by older people, yet older people canand doplay an important role in our national life. Indeed, as the hon. Member for Llanelli (Nia Griffith) pointed out, many of them are extremely active and run businesses well beyond what would otherwise be their retirement age.
	If the commissioner can make a difference that will improve the lives of older people, the role will be greatly welcomed in Wales. The proposal of appointing a champion for older people is thus broadly welcomed among Conservative Members, but I have to echo the note of caution and concerns expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham(Mrs. Gillan). Such caution was also expressed in the other place by my noble Friend Lord Roberts of Conwy and by the hon. Member for Carmarthen, East and Dinefwr (Adam Price) in the Chamber today. The note of caution is that we must not expect the commissioner to be able to achieve too much.
	As the hon. Member for Carmarthen, East and Dinefwr eloquently pointed out, the commissioner's functions will be confined to devolved matters. That is the significant weakness of the Bill because the commissioner will effectively be able to do nothing whatever to intervene formally in respect of many aspects of life that are of specific concern to older people, two prime examples of which are crime and pensions. Indeed, the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Mr. Williams) pointed out that under the Bill as drafted, it would not be possible for the commissioner to make any meaningful response to the recommendations of the Turner commission.
	Although pensioner poverty is a blight on the life of our nation, the commissioner will be virtually helpless to address concerns such as the consequences of the collapse of the Allied Steel and Wire pension fund, which the Secretary of State mentioned in his speech. I understand that informal channels will be opened up whereby the commissioner will be able to express concerns and advance the cases of pensioners such as those affected in that case, but it is perhaps surprising that the Government did not consider appointing a UK-wide commissioner, or at least, as the hon. Member for Carmarthen, East and Dinefwr suggested, formalising the route by which the commissioner could approach UK Ministers. In the light of that, we should not be too ambitious. We must not expect the commissioner to be the ultimate answer to the ultimate question for older people in Wales. We must be realistic about the benefits that his appointment will bring.
	The commissioner will, however, be able to inquire into the effect on pensioners in Wales of the rising levels of council tax, so I hope that he will do that at the earliest possible moment. That matter was mentioned by the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire. We must not forget that Wales, uniquely, has experienced rebanding and the revaluation of dwelling houses, although pensioners in England have been spared that.

Julie Morgan: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the average council tax in my area of Cardiff is lower post revaluation than the council tax in Bristol?

David Jones: We could to and fro on the point ad nauseam, but in my part of Wales, certainly, pensioners are paying significantly more as a result of revaluation and rebanding than would otherwise have been the case.
	I echo the concerns of my hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham by querying the powers that the commissioner will have. Clause 10 of the Bill sets up sweeping inquisitorial and quasi-judicial powers that will be backed up by a panoply of legal weapons, including the reference of individual cases to theHigh Court with the possible ultimate sanction of committing individuals to prison for contempt. Such weapons are very powerful and should notand will not, I am surebe used capriciously or lightly. We will thus probe in Committee how the powers will be used and in what circumstances that will happen. Indeed, those powers are not possessed by Ministers. Although it might be appropriate for the commissioner to have them, we will want reassurances from the Government about the manner and circumstances in which they may be deployed.
	My hon. Friend has already referred to the powers of entry in clause 13. Again, we will want clarification on how the powers may be used. There is specific worry about how the powers will interface with those that are currently vested in the Care Standards Inspectorate for Wales. That was mentioned by the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mrs. Moon), who has some experience of these matters.
	We can envisage circumstances in which both the commissioner and the inspectorate might be concerned about what was going on in a particular care home. It would be extraordinary and, indeed, ridiculous if both the commissioner and the inspectorate decided to exercise their comparable powers at the same time. We shall want to explore the matter further in Committee, but the Government may wish to consider whether, in cases in which the inspector is concerned about the activities of a care home, he should have power to call for an investigation by the care standards inspectorate. I see that the Minister is nodding. Presumably that is why the CSI is not among the organisations mentioned in schedule 1.
	We also have concerns about the staffing and funding of the commissioner's office. The Bill, when enacted, will establish a fairly sizeable bureaucracy. We will wish to know whether the size of that bureaucracy is justified. For example, paragraph 4 of schedule 1 provides that the commissioner must appoint a deputy commissioner. Why is that provision mandatory rather than permissive? Why does the commissioner need a deputy? Will he not already be adequately supported by the remaining, no doubt sizeable, staff who will be provided from his 1.5 million per annum budget? Does he really need a deputy who will no doubt be furnished with a sizeable support staff of his own? What added value will the deputy provide?
	Similarly, the commissioner is to be paid from ministerial budgets. Given that one of the commissioner's primary duties will be to scrutinise the actions and activities of Welsh Assembly Ministers, is it right that Ministers should be responsible for paying his salary and those of the members of his team? What safeguards does the Government propose to ensure that the suspicion does not arise that he who pays the piper calls the tune?
	Questions also arise over the commissioner's period of tenure. Paragraph 2 of schedule 1 states that that will be a matter for regulations that will be made at some time in the future. The use of secondary legislation is something of an addiction of the Government's. One must ask why the period of tenure could not and should not be stated in the Bill. There seems to be no good reason for that, and we shall invite the Government's observations.
	There are other matters that concern us. For example, clause 19 establishes statutory defences of absolute and qualified privilege to actions for defamation in respect of many of the commissioner's activities. We will need to know why the commissioner should have such protection in every such case. He may, for example, make damaging criticisms of the activities of care home proprietors and staff while exercising his duties. Why should he have a defence of privilege if, as a result of his making allegations that subsequently turn out to be false, the lives and livelihoods of those people are blighted? With power comes responsibility, and, given the sweeping powers that are to be conferred on the commissionerI must beg to differ from the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire: this is not a toothless tiger, but a tiger with very sharp teethit is only right that he should be called to account if he causes damage in exercising those powers. Indeed, I see no reason why he should not be subject to an action for defamation.
	We share the broad welcome given to the Bill by Members, but we do not do so uncritically. We fear that from the bonfire of the quangos of which we have heard so much there has risen a new bureaucratic phoenix in the form of commissioners. Once the accusation was that Wales was quangoland; now it may fairly be suggested that it is rapidly becoming the fiefdom of commissioners. The more cynical might suggest that an important role of the commissioners would be to shoulder responsibilities that would otherwise fall on Ministers. We do not believe that that should happen. While it is welcome that Wales should have a commissioner who will champion the interests of older people, we would expect Ministers to act as champions for older people as well. If Ministers, whether here or in the Welsh Assembly, see that the interests of older people are being compromised, they should intervene and not simply leave it to the commissioner to take action. We, and the people of Wales, expect Ministers to be proactive and not just to await the criticism that may emanate from the commissioner.
	As I have said, we broadly support the Bill, but we do not do so uncritically. In Committee we will seek answers to the questions that I have asked and, no doubt, to others.

Nick Ainger: I am grateful for all the contributions that have been made. I appreciated both their content and their brevity, bearing in mind what may be happening from 5 pm onwards. I am grateful to the House for its general support for the Bill. A number of important issues have been raised, and I am sure that they will be discussed in Committee. I shall respond to some of the larger themes aired in the debate, particularly those related to non-devolved matters.
	The hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) asked what role the commissioner would have in relation to NICE reportsfor example, its report on drugs used to treat Alzheimer's disease. The commissioner would not be able to make direct representations to NICE, but would certainly be able to take up such matters if a Welsh health board either allowed, or, more likely, did not allow drugs on which NICE had made recommendations to be prescribed. The commissioner would be able to raise matters relating to a NICE decision via that channel.
	The hon. Lady and others, including the hon. Member for Clwyd, West (Mr. Jones), whom I welcome to the Front BenchI apologise for not having doneso earlierquestioned the independence of the commissioner, given that the funding for the post would come directly from the Assembly, but in many cases the commissioner would be examining the policies and actions of the Assembly. The basic argument was that he who pays the piper calls the tune. However, the same arrangement applies to the Children's Commissioner and, as my hon. Friends the Members for Cardiff, North (Julie Morgan) and for Bridgend (Mrs. Moon) pointed out, where necessary the Children's Commissioner has acted in a forthright way when dealing directly with Assembly actions and policies. I therefore do not think that the independence of the new commissioner will be fettered by the way in which his office is funded.

David Jones: I hear what the Minister says, but there will be a difference. At present, the Assembly is a body corporate and is responsible for paying the Children's Commissioner, but if the Government of Wales Bill is enacted that will cease to be the case. The Welsh Assembly Government will have their own budgets and the new commissioner will be paid from those ministerial budgets.

Nick Ainger: The hon. Gentleman is correct, but it would be an unwise Minister who cut the budget of a commissioner because he or she did not like a report that that commissioner had produced. I am sure that the commissioner will make that perfectly clear and that the Assembly would call a Minister who acted in that way to account. I believe that there are sufficient checks and balances to guarantee the independence of the commissioner.
	The hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham asked whether the commissioner's role would be similar to Ofwat's. The answer is no, it would not. Ofwat exists directly to protect the interests of water customers, whereas the role of the commissioner is to help and safeguard vulnerable older people and to improve the quality of life of all older people in Wales. That very different remit is clearly set out in the Bill.
	Another question raised by the hon. Lady, which was taken up by the hon. Member for Carmarthen, East and Dinefwr (Adam Price), was why the Bill set the age threshold at 60. Both hon. Members spoke about age discrimination in work and said that, for many people, such discrimination starts before 60. The House should be aware that regulations on age discrimination in employment and training are being introduced, with effect from October 2006. Those regulations will be enforced by the new commission for equality and human rights. That is already being addressed. A limit must be set somewhere. If not, the number of people whom the commissioner would be covering would involve not only old or older people but younger people as well. I understand the idea of having flexibility, for example, but the real issue of age discrimination at work will be addressed by the commission for equality and human rights in terms of the regulations that it will be enforcing.
	The main issue raised by the hon. Members for Brecon and Radnorshire (Mr. Williams) and for Carmarthen, East and Dinefwr, my hon. Friend for Cardiff, North and the Member for Clwyd, West was that of the role of the commission in relation to non-devolved matters, which clearly affect older people in Wales, whether these issues involve pensions or even the Care Standards Act 2000, whatever it may be. There are issues in which older people will clearly be interested.
	The hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire asked about the pensions White Paper and other matters. He went on to ask about the role that the commissioner would play in that context. He will be able to give his view on the proposals set out in the White Paper. Given who he is, and under clause 9, it would be possible to carry out research. That would lead to an authoritative contribution to the White Paper. He, like anyone else in the United Kingdom, will be able to make a direct and authoritative response to the White Paper. His position would clearly carry weight.
	Clause 9 would allow, as I have said, research to be carried out, even in areas where the issue was non-devolved. A report would be made to the Assembly, which it could take up directly with the relevant UK Department. Alternatively, as we have said in relation to the Children's Commissioner for Wales, if he wanted to report to my right hon. Friend or myself, we could take up the matter. The important thing is that he is not fettered from carrying out research if there is a real issue affecting pensioners in Wales because of the actions or legislation that are currently reserved. Representations could still be made, and those representations would carry a great deal of weight. I am sure that this is an issue to which we will return in Committee.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend made an extremely well informed speech, given her long professional involvement in these matters. She cited some excellent examples of how the Children's Commissioner for Wales had been effective, and far more effective than the local authority or the ombudsman, for example, because he is seen as an advocate and someone genuinely representing children with particular problems.
	I am confident that when the older persons commissioner is appointed, he will be in exactly that position and will be seen as a great advocate for issues relating to older people.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend asked some specific questions, particularly in relation to the Care Standards Inspectorate for Wales. That name does not appear in the Bill and my hon. Friend is concerned that therefore the commissioner would not be able to investigate the actions of the CSIW. May I reassure her that, in fact, he can do so, because the Care Standards Inspectorate for Wales is accountable to the Assembly, which is covered by clause 3. If the commissioner is concerned about the actions of the CSIW, he can carry out investigations or make direct representations to the Assembly on behalf of any older person. I cannot comment directly on the Holly House case that my hon. Friend raised because, as she said, an appeal has been lodged with the tribunal. The commissioner could look at such issues, and if he found that the workings of the regulations under the Care Standards Act 2000 affected the welfare of individual residents, he could make representations to the Assembly. If the regulations were not working he could ask the Assembly to change them, or he could make representations to the relevant Department through the Assembly, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State or myself, so there are several channels to address those issues. I hope that my hon. Friend is happy with that explanation, but we can explore the matter in greater detail in Committee.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North and the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire raised the issue of joint working, and they were concerned about the working relationship between the public services ombudsman for Wales and the new equality and human rights commission. Those bodies must work together, because the new commission will have responsibility for tackling age discrimination and so on. The children's commissioner has a good relationship with other commissioners and the public services ombudsman, so I expect those bodies to develop links to avoid duplication and ensure that the new commission and the commission for older people are effective in exercising the powers given to them by the Government.
	May I assure my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North that although the post of commissioner for older people is a new one, the commissioner will learn from the experience of the children's commissioner, whose work has received great support? No one has made any serious criticisms of the work that he has done, and the post is regarded as a huge step forward. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said, it has been copied in England.

Nick Ainger: It depends on the nature of the complaint, of course. Clearly, if it is about the payment of a pension and something is wrong, that would be an issue for the Department for Work and Pensions,and ultimately, if there was no satisfaction, the parliamentary ombudsman. However, if the complaint is about more general issues, perhaps affecting more than one individual, although the commissioner would need to receive a complaint initially from at least one pensioner or their representative, as I explained to the hon. Member for Carmarthen, East and Dinefwr, the commissioner could carry out whatever research he feels is reasonable and then make representations either through my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State or me to the relevant Department or directly to the Assembly for it to make direct representation to the relevant body. That is the route that has come about.
	The hon. Members for Carmarthen, East and Dinefwr and for Brecon and Radnorshire referred to council tax. Again, on the effect of the revaluation that has taken place, if the commissioner had been in place then, he could have made direct representations to the Assembly.
	The Bill to establish a commissioner for older people represents a landmark development in promoting policies for older people and is another example of how Wales is able to set an example, not only to the United Kingdom, but to the rest of Europe and possibly the wider world. The commissioner, as an ambassador and authority on older people's issues, is part of an overall strategy to ensure that the interests of older people are fully integrated into the mainstream policies of the Welsh Assembly Government. I look forward to the House's continuing support for this groundbreaking proposal, and I commend the Bill to the House.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Queen's recommendation having been signified
	 Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 52(1)(a) (Money resolutions and ways and means resolutions in connection with bills),
	That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Commissioner for Older People (Wales) Bill [ Lords], it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any increase attributable to the Act in thesums payable out of money so provided under any other Act. [Mr. Roy.]
	 Question agreed to.

Jeremy Browne: On a day when the nation holds its breath and hopes to become a world beater, it is particularly appropriate that we have the opportunity over the next half hour or so to debate an aspect of Britain in which we are already world beaters. I refer to the Hydyrographic Office, which is based in Taunton.
	It may be helpful to start by explaining what the Hydrographic Office is, as some people do not know. What it doesI put it in layman's terms, claiming no scientific expertise myselfis chart the oceans, seas and coastlines of the world. If we imagine an Ordnance Survey-style map with contours showing the relief and lie of the land, that is what the Hydrographic Office produces, but for underwater regions. It is a constantly evolving task, as significant movements constantly occur through sandbanks, pebbles and other underwater changes. A good topical example is the tsunami, which had a dramatic impact on the ocean floor in that part of the world. Some areas need to be mapped because the water is particularly shallow or there may be rocks just under the surface that pose a danger to shipping.
	The Hydrographic Office was set up by George III in 1795. Britain was losing too many ships at sea, and the Hydrographic Office was seen as a necessary response. The first chart was produced in 1800 and the office has gone from strength to strength ever since. Anyone who visits the Hydrographic OfficeI hope that you,Mr. Deputy Speaker, and the Minister will have that opportunitywill see some fascinating artefacts. For example, the first ever map of New Zealand, drawn by Captain Cook, can be seen there. It was drawn before satellite technology and other devices made it so much easier to produce maps to such a high standard. It is a remarkable historical document, which puts into perspective the long service of the Hydrographic Officenow a world beater.
	In using the term world beater, I do not exaggerate because few countries aspire to chart the world's oceans. Most countries with a coastline cover the miles close to their own coasts and particularly concentrate on areas with heavy shipping such as the entrances to ports. However, there are very few countries across the world that aspire to perform the task with excellencethe United States, Russia and France to some extent, and the United Kingdom. Most people in the United States, Russia and France would accept that the United Kingdom has the most eminent and professionally drawn charts. Commercial practices bear that out. Shipping companies throughout the world, many of which have no direct link with the UK, buy the charts for their shipping from the Hydrographic Office based in Taunton.
	At the last general election, the Hydrographic Office loomed fairly large as an election issue in Taunton. The James review commissioned by the previous leader of the Conservative party recommended, as one of the proposals adopted and accepted by the leader of the Conservative party at that time, that the Hydrographic Office should be privatised.
	There are many compelling reasons why that would not be a wise course of action. I do not intend to dwell on them at length, but there are issues in relation to reciprocal arrangements with other countries, and possible problems with insurance liabilities which are potentially enormous for the Hydrographic Office. The service is so successful and so popular that it makes money, so the case for privatising it on efficiency grounds is less attractive than in other parts of the public sector. Others may wish to contribute their thoughts on the ownership issue, but I shall not dwell on it.
	Instead, I shall focus on the possibility that the Hydrographic Office will be moved from Taunton to a proposed new site next to the Met Office in Exeter. I shall suggest three reasons why I hope that the Government and the Ministry of Defence will give much thought to that proposal and reject it. The first relates to jobs and the economy of Taunton. People often ask me who are the big employers in my constituency. We have some fairly large private sector employersfor example, Relyon, a bed making company in Wellington in my constituency, and Swallowfield, a company that makes aerosols, also located in Wellington, both of which employ hundreds of people. If either of those were to close or move, that would be extremely damaging to our local economy.
	In Taunton, interestingly, there is no single big private sector employer. There are lots of smaller service-type jobs, but because it is the county town for Somerset, most of the jobs in Taunton reflect that status. The county council is a significant employer. Musgrove Park hospital, which serves most of Somerset and some parts of Devon as well, is a big employer, and the UK Hydrographic Office is a very large and significant employer. It employs around 1,000 people in the town and those jobs are extremely varied.

Jeremy Browne: The hon. Gentleman's intervention is not only extremely helpful, but extremely well informed. I was about to make that point. A large number of the jobs at the Hydrographic Office are high skilled jobs. It is a problem in an area like Somerset to keep such skills and such levels of pay in our area. We have many jobs. Compared to other parts of the country, we do not have a particular problem with unemployment. We have a bigger problem offering the career levels that mean that educated people with good qualifications do not have to go and live in Bristol or London, but can stay in Taunton and bring up their families there because suitable jobs are available in the locality. There are hundreds of jobs of that type at the Hydrographic Office, which has a beneficial knock-on effect on shopping and other services in Taunton.

Jeremy Browne: That is a good point. I am vigilant in terms of trying to ensure that public spending is as efficient as possible. If the hon. Gentleman does not mind, I hope to cover that point later in my speech.
	The Hydrographic Office provides not only hundreds of skilled jobs, but a wide variety of jobs. Most hon. Members would accept that those who hold the maintenance and cleaning positions will not want to relocate or to commute a long distance. Furthermore, the Hydrographic Office is based in east Taunton, where it is surrounded by estates such as Halcon, Lambrook and the Lane, which are some of the poorest parts of Somerset. For those jobs to be available within walking distance of those people's homes is an important stimulus to wealth creation in east Taunton.
	It has been suggested that people who live in Taunton will be able to commute, because Exeter is only 35 miles down the M5. I accept that a lot of the senior people would choose to commute in those circumstances, but a lot of the junior people would not. A lot of the people in the lower paid jobs at the Hydrographic Office would not think a 70-mile round trip each day either affordable or desirable, so those jobs would be filled by people who live in Exeter rather than by people who live in Taunton. Furthermore, the commuters would eventually retire and be replaced by people who would move not to Taunton, but to Exeter. Over time, those 1,000 jobs would be whittled away until Taunton derives no economic benefit from having previously had the Hydrographic Office.
	We are hearing more from the Government about global warming and the need to reduce car use, which is sensible, so it seems perverse that one of the arguments for moving the service is that people will be able to drive considerable distances to get there.

Jeremy Browne: The hon. Gentleman has touched a raw nerve. Nobody formally notified me of the process.
	I have discussed how 1,000 people in Taunton are employed directly by the Hydrographic Office, which has a knock-on economic effect, but those are not any old 1,000 jobs. If 1,000 jobs were lost across the board, it would have a serious impact on the economy of our area, but its emotional effect on people in Taunton would be less profound than moving the Hydrographic Office, because the Hydrographic Office has been in Taunton for many years.
	The Hydrographic Office was partly moved to Taunton during the second world war, and it was moved in its entirety in the 1960s. Some families have worked there for generations, and people have an attachment and affinity to it. They have a great sense of pride in the fact that in Taunton we have not only a national but an international institutiona centre of world renown and excellence. I should like to thinkand I believe that most people in Taunton would accept thisthat there is a real affinity and link between the town and the service. If one of us went out into a street in London and said, What's the Hydrographic Office and what does it do?, I suspect that the person we chose to ask would not know the answer, but if we asked the same question of anybody in the street in Taunton, they would know, because everyone has a very clear sense of connection to it.
	When I was first shown round a few years ago, I asked what struck me as an obvious, if possibly slightly rude, questionWhy on earth is the Hydrographic Office based in Taunton? The person who was showing me round said that one of the reasons why it was put there is that it is roughly equidistant between Plymouth and Portsmouth. I had never thought of it in those terms before. The other reason is that it has very good communication links. It is now on the M5 motorway and on an intercity train line. All those reasons apply just as much today, in fact even more so, as they did when the decision was taken to move the service from London to Taunton for security reasons during the second world war.
	The last of my three points is a slightly wider economic one. The Government have decided that it is necessary for there to be a large expansion in the number of houses in the south-west, with about a million extra houses. We hear a lot, in this House and elsewhere, about population growth in the south-east, but the south-west is another region that is growing very quickly, much of it as a result of inward migration from other parts of the United Kingdom. I accept the Government's argument that it would probably not be desirable to have those 1 million houses scattered in a random fashion across what is predominantly a rural region, and that it makes sense, in terms of building communities and economically, for them to be concentrated in hubs. One of the places that has been identified as a hub for extra housing and development is Taunton, largely because of the excellent communication links and geographical positioning that I mentioned.
	As a consequence, Taunton has been assigned more than 20,000 extra houses. Although there is a need for extra house-building, many associated issues and problems may arise from that extra development in terms of traffic congestion and extra pressure on amenities such as schools and the hospital, which has a very limited site and might have difficulty expanding to cope with those extra numbers. Furthermore, the character of what is essentially a county town will be changed, some may think for the better, some may think for the worse, by being expanded to that extent. Some people are uncomfortable about it, but by and large they accept that it will happen. However, the quid pro quo for the extra congestion and extra pressure on public services should be that it will mean more jobs, more prosperity, and more opportunities for people living in the town. If we are to get all the downsides of expansion without the upsides, people in Taunton have a right to say, Wait a secondthis isn't treating us fairly or even-handedly.
	If a private company was taking such a decision to relocate its jobs, I could have strong views about that, but my powers of influence, and those of the Government, would be limited. However, that is not so in this case. The Government are at risk of running two completely contrary policies in two Departments. One Department is earmarking Taunton for extra expansion, extra development and extra jobs, thereby making it an economic centre, while another Department, the Ministry of Defence, runs the risk of taking away precisely the sort of high-value jobs that it is envisaged that the people living in all these extra houses will be doing.

Tom Watson: As you know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, my hon. Friend has a reputation for being a salty sea dog; he is a great seafarer and mariner and I pay tribute to his skills. When I tested the argument for moving to digital technology with the chief executive of the UK Hydrographic Office, he told me thatunlike in the case of ordnance survey mapping, where there has been a transition to digital mappingmariners still place a traditional value on maps, and that many still prefer them to digital ones. So my hon. Friend's point is a good one well made.
	As I was saying, it is right that we think about these issues, especially at a time when the Government are carrying out the comprehensive spending review. For that reason, my Department is considering the future of all its trading funds as part of a wider examination of defence support functions, in order to maximise the resources that we can make available to the front line. The consideration that we are giving to the future of the UKHO is thus not only our duty to the organisation and its staff, but is part of a wider obligation to the taxpayer that I hope all hon. Members recognise.
	In view of the points made by the hon. Member for Taunton, it might help if I disentangle some of the facts from the speculation. To begin with, in effect, we are carrying out some pre-thinking [Interruption.] Bear with me. We are carrying out such thinking to determine whether it is worth instituting a formal review, and, if so, what ground it should cover. As I have said, the basic issue is whether trading fund status is the best status to enable the UKHO to succeed as a provider of key Government services and as a successful commercial concern.

Tom Watson: The best way to answer that is to undertake to send a copy of  Hansard to the Chairman of the Defence Committee.
	Let me also take this opportunity to give a categorical assurance that no secret decisions are involved. There is no hidden agenda and I am clear that trading fund status has brought many benefits to UKHO, to the Ministry of Defence and to the taxpayer more widely. I would therefore need to be convinced by evidence and facts that there was a case to tinker with what historically has been a successful structure. Against that, however, I can see a potential argument that a status closer to the private sector might give greater assurance of commercial success in an increasingly competitive international marketplace. It is right therefore that we examine that idea a little further. That is what we are now doing. A compelling case for change would have to be made, and so far I have not seen the evidence to make that case.
	The hon. Member also raised the separate question of the possible relocation of the Hydrographic Office. The Hydrographic Office has indeed identified that its current premises are ageing and coming to the end of their useful life. It is, therefore, examining options for the future. In order to ensure the best overall outcome, it is rightly looking at a range of options, including both redevelopment of its current siteas the hon. Gentleman mentionedand relocation. The work will take a few months to complete. Again, no conclusions have been reached. The final decision will be taken by me, as the ministerial owner, but I hope that the hon. Member for Taunton will contribute to the consultation process. As the House would expect, my decision will be based on what will provide the most effective and efficient solution, and deliver best value for money to the taxpayer.
	The hon. Member for Taunton highlighted the possibility of co-locating UKHO with the Met Office in Exeter. That is one of the possibilities being looked at, since it is obviously logical to explore relocation to an existing MOD site in the same broad geographic area. I take his point about motorway journeys, and I understand Taunton's geography, but colleagues would rightly be surprised if we were not considering the possibility as part of our overall examination of the current facilities. As I made clear to the Defence Committee, I shall reach a decision based on the evidence and the business case when they are complete and presented to me.